Site Mobile Navigation

Senators Dust Off Iraq Study Group Report

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, right, testifying in the Senate in January.Credit
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

WASHINGTON, July 13 — After the Iraq Study Group report was released last December, offering a blueprint for changing course in Iraq, it rocketed to the top of bestseller lists and more than 1.5 million copies were downloaded from the Internet. But the reader who mattered most, President Bush, quickly shelved it.

Now, with the Bush administration’s own assessment showing limited progress in Iraq and an increasingly exasperated Congress once again debating the future of the war, a growing number of senators from both parties are making a new push to adopt the study group’s recommendations into law.

The effort has rekindled interest in the findings of the study group, which was led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, including the prospect of aggressive diplomatic efforts involving Iran and Syria, while also fueling debate over whether the report is now outdated.

Supporters of the study group plan say that it has the best chance, of the many war proposals ricocheting around Capitol Hill, of unifying Democrats intent on forcing the administration to shift its war strategy and Republicans who have criticized the president but so far refused to vote against him.

“It’s a chance for a fresh start,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, who with Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, is leading the push to adopt the group’s proposals. “At least we would have a direction.”

Critics, however, say that the report, which had robust support in Congress when it was first unveiled, is outdated and made even more irrelevant by half-hearted efforts by the administration to adopt some of its 79 recommendations, like a brief but so far fruitless diplomatic overture to Syria.

Those critics include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and other Democrats who originally embraced the report but now want a firm deadline for withdrawing troops. The report set a target for withdrawing combat troops by March 2008 but gave the administration wide flexibility.

“They started doing the study well more than a year ago,” Mr. Reid said Thursday. “It has been seven months since the report was given to us. And it calls for a lot of diplomatic measures. There’s not a single tooth in that proposal. No, I can’t vote for it.”

The group’s main recommendations call for a shift from combat to training Iraqi forces and fighting terrorism, a forceful regionwide diplomatic initiative and a reduction in American financial and military aid to the Iraqi government should it fail to meet prescribed goals.

Mr. Baker, a close friend of the Bush family, has been silent about the renewed interest in the report and declined a request for an interview. In December, Mr. Baker warned the White House not to treat the report “like a fruit salad.”

Photo

Senator Ken Salazar, right, says that because people on both sides oppose the Iraq Study Group report, maybe its the right thing.Credit
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Mr. Hamilton, by contrast, has seized the opportunity to promote the group’s recommendations and to criticize the administration for not adopting them sooner. In a public letter to Mr. Salazar, Mr. Hamilton praised the proposed legislation, writing, “It outlines the best chance of salvaging a measure of stability in Iraq.”

In an interview, Mr. Hamilton acknowledged that there is now far less confidence in the Iraqi government’s ability to govern and that it may take longer to withdraw combat troops than the report anticipated. But he insisted the group’s proposals were still urgently needed.

“The report is not out of date,” Mr. Hamilton said. “We said the situation was grave and deteriorating. I think that’s still the case today. We call for a new diplomatic offensive. I think that’s still needed today. We call for training being the primary mission. I think that’s still needed today.”

A renewed effort to adopt the group’s recommendations began in March as part of the Congressional debate over President Bush’s request for $100 billion in emergency military spending. On the Senate floor, Mr. Alexander urged President Bush to take the report “down off the shelf and use it for something other than a bookend.”

Afterward, he was approached by Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, about drafting legislation, only to discover that Mr. Salazar was already doing so. In May, they picked up support from three more senators, including Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican.

Now, as Congress considers competing proposals for changing course in the war, Mr. Alexander and Mr. Salazar are insisting that theirs has the only realistic chance. They have won the backing of eight more senators for a total of 14, eight Democrats and six Republicans.

“I know there are people on both sides who don’t like it; the White House doesn’t like it,” Mr. Salazar said. “Since there are people on both sides who don’t like it, maybe it’s the right thing.”

Mr. Bush has made it clear that he opposes any attempt by Congress to legislate how he conducts the war. But in recent weeks administration officials have spoken positively about the study group’s findings, saying they support its broad goals. And they have avoided saying outright that he would veto the legislation, reflecting an apparent concern that the White House not be perceived as totally dismissing a report that has been held in high esteem by members of both parties.

Mr. Reid, the majority leader, and other Democrats now insisting on a firm deadline for withdrawing troops are lobbying against the measure, fearing it would let Republicans appear to be taking action against an unpopular war while not forcing any real changes by the White House.

Still, Mr. Reid has agreed to let the measure come to a vote late next week after the Senate considers other proposals, including one he supports, which would set a 120-day deadline to begin troop withdrawals, and another by prominent Republicans seeking to narrow the scope of the war. If neither passes, the study group plan could offer a last chance before the summer recess for lawmakers to show voters that they can agree on at least some action aimed at changing the course of the war.

One supporter, Senator John E. Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, said he had favored adopting the study group’s proposals all along. “It’s a good framework,” he said.

Other senators said they were still considering the idea. “If we put the Iraq Study Group into place, does that send the wrong signal to anybody?” asked Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican. “I don’t think so.”

A version of this article appears in print on , on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Grasping for Common Ground, Senators Dust Off the Baker-Hamilton Report. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe